🔗 Share this article

For many years, preventing climate change” has been the primary objective of climate politics. Throughout the political spectrum, from community-based climate advocates to high-level UN representatives, reducing carbon emissions to prevent future disaster has been the central focus of climate policies.

Yet climate change has come and its material impacts are already being observed. This means that climate politics can no longer focus exclusively on forestalling future catastrophes. It must now also include debates over how society manages climate impacts already altering economic and social life. Risk pools, property, aquatic and spatial policies, workforce systems, and community businesses – all will need to be radically remade as we adapt to a transformed and increasingly volatile climate.

Natural vs. Political Consequences

To date, climate adjustment has focused on the environmental impacts of climate change: reinforcing seawalls against coastal flooding, improving flood control systems, and modifying buildings for severe climate incidents. But this infrastructure-centric framing sidesteps questions about the organizations that will influence how people experience the political impacts of climate change. Is it acceptable to permit property insurance markets to function without restriction, or should the national authorities support high-risk regions? Should we continue disaster aid systems that exclusively benefit property owners, or do we guarantee equitable recovery support? Should we abandon workers toiling in extreme heat to their management's decisions, or do we establish federal protections?

These questions are not hypothetical. In the United States alone, a increase in non-renewal rates across the homeowners’ insurance industry – even beyond danger zones in Florida and California – indicates that climate threatens to trigger a countrywide coverage emergency. In 2023, UPS workers proposed a nationwide strike over on-the-job heat exposure, ultimately achieving an agreement to equip air conditioning in delivery trucks. That same year, after decades of drought left the Colorado River’s reservoirs at historic lows – threatening water supplies for 40 million people – the Biden administration compensated Arizona, Nevada and California $1.2bn to cut their water usage. How we answer to these governmental emergencies – and those to come – will establish completely opposing visions of society. Yet these struggles remain largely outside the frame of climate politics, which continues to treat adaptation as a engineering issue for professionals and designers rather than authentic societal debate.

From Specialist Frameworks

Climate politics has already transcended technocratic frameworks when it comes to mitigation. Nearly 30 years ago, the Kyoto protocol symbolized the common understanding that economic tools would solve climate change. But as emissions kept rising and those markets proved ineffectual, the focus transitioned to countrywide industrial policy debates – and with it, climate became truly ideological. Recent years have seen countless political battles, including the eco-friendly markets of Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act versus the democratic socialism of the Green New Deal to debates over public ownership of minerals in Bolivia and fossil fuel transition payments in Germany. These are fights about principles and mediating between competing interests, not merely carbon accounting.

Yet even as climate migrated from the domain of technocratic elites to more recognizable arenas of political struggle, it remained limited to the realm of decarbonization. Even the socially advanced agenda of Zohran Mamdani’s NYC mayoral campaign – which associates climate to the economic pressure, arguing that housing cost controls, public child services and no-cost transportation will prevent New Yorkers from fleeing for more affordable, but resource-heavy, life in the suburbs – makes its case through an pollution decrease lens. A completely holistic climate politics would apply this same political imagination to adaptation – transforming social institutions not only to avert future warming, but also to address the climate impacts already reshaping everyday life.

Transcending Apocalyptic Perspectives

The need for this shift becomes clearer once we move beyond the apocalyptic framing that has long dominated climate discourse. In claiming that climate change constitutes an unstoppable phenomenon that will entirely overcome human civilization, climate politics has become oblivious to the reality that, for most people, climate change will materialize not as something totally unprecedented, but as existing challenges made worse: more people priced out of housing markets after disasters, more workers forced to work during heatwaves, more local industries devastated after extreme weather events. Climate adaptation is not a separate engineering problem, then, but rather connected to ongoing political struggles.

Forming Strategic Battles

The landscape of this struggle is beginning to emerge. One influential think tank, for example, recently proposed reforms to the property insurance market to expose homeowners to the “full actuarial cost” of living in danger zones like California. By contrast, a progressive research institute has proposed a system of Housing Resilience Agencies that would provide universal catastrophe coverage. The divergence is stark: one approach uses cost indicators to push people out of at-risk locations – effectively a form of planned withdrawal through economic forces – while the other commits public resources that permit them to stay in place safely. But these kinds of policy debates remain few and far between in climate discourse.

This is not to suggest that mitigation should be abandoned. But the exclusive focus on preventing climate catastrophe masks a more present truth: climate change is already altering our world. The question is not whether we will restructure our institutions to manage climate impacts, but how – and whose vision will prevail.